I'm with Perry on this one.

If self-published books were allowed (and they almost never are; there is nothing new or unusual about this stipulation, in fact it's standard), the judges would need at least six months off work to read them all, to say nothing of clerical, administrative, storage and freighting costs. All of that is 'public money' that could be going instead to the winning writer.

Given the usually-correct assumption that an author has self-published because s/he couldn't find a publisher who would accept his/her work (and probably not an agent to handle it either), surely that's a reasonable test of whether a book is likely to be a contender for a literary prize? It is admirable that self-publishers should have such faith in their own work, but it is a bit unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to share that faith.

I know it's comfortable to blame capitalism, and God knows I blame it myself for many things, but the truth is usually that if one has written a good book, then that book will eventually survive the competition of the agent's voicemail and the publisher's slush pile. One publisher can easily be wrong, but twenty rarely are.

Perry, on numbers, few publishers would have considered -- back in the days when I knew about these things, late 80s and early 90s -- an initial print run of fewer than 2000 copies (at least as far as fiction is concerned) and that figure may be bigger these days. Even small specialist academic books (again, my figures have whiskers on them) are rarely worth a publisher's while at fewer than 750.

Hopefully the same probem won't arise here, but it might.

Larrikin, where do I start? Your hope that nothing like the self-publishing dilemma faced by the MWA with its Edgar Award won't occur here with the PM's Literary Award has no basis: self-published works of any kind will not be accepted, which means that at least one worthy title that I know of (as with Aleas's book in the US) will be eliminated without even being looked at. And I'm sure there are many more.

But really, I feel it's probably not worth arguing the case here because it appears you've not taken in my earlier comments: What about the long list of self-publishers who are now considered literary giants? What about the fact that a great deal of questionable material comes out of the large, conventional publishing houses, and that a wide range of excellent material comes from self-publishers (e.g., Aleas's work in the US -- Macpherson's work, here)? What about the fact that this is Australian taxpayer money that's being handed out for what now amounts to be a limited industry award rather than a search for exemplary literature within the community? What about the principle of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

If the concern is that a plethora of poor quality material might land on the judges' doorsteps, then that's a problem the organisers should address via the judging process. It's not too hard to very quickly -- in minutes -- determine whether a piece of writing is worthy of further consideration or not. And, I should point out, it's more than occurs in many large publishing houses where manuscripts in their slush piles are never even looked at! The Premier's Literary Awards in each of the states do not have this discriminatory restriction on self-published books, and they appear to operate quite satisfactorily. So it seems the idea that organisers will be overwhelmed by self-published matter is based on surmise rather than fact. But it shouldn't matter anyway.

There's so much more I could say about this dreadful issue but it seems no one is listening. (P.S. It would be nice if you'd spell my name correctly).

I also have a few comments for 'Kerryn' regarding her post: Kerryn, I really don't know what you're basing your comments on -- but certainly not facts.

If self-published books were allowed (and they almost never are; there is nothing new or unusual about this stipulation, in fact it's standard)...

No, it's not standard, Kerryn. You only have to check the guidelines for the Premier's Literary Awards in each state of Australia -- or try the IMPAC Dublin Literary Award -- one of the biggest in the world. What about something more obscure: the Sundial Scottish Arts Council Literary Award (biggest in that country). Some awards have the discriminatory restriction, and many, to their credit, don't.

Given the usually-correct assumption that an author has self-published because s/he couldn't find a publisher who would accept his/her work (and probably not an agent to handle it either)surely that's a reasonable test of whether a book is likely to be a contender for a literary prize?

Firstly, I don't know if it's usually correct -- and I'm sure you don't either (it's certainly a popular theory) -- but even if that assumption is right then it's certainly not a reasonable test for determining whether a book should be considered for a literary prize. Have you researched the names and numbers of self-published authors who are now considered 'greats'? Are you aware of the plethora of stories about now-established authors who received hundreds of rejections from conventional publishing houses and literary agents? I'm afraid your apparent view that mainstream publishers have a monopoly on spotting talent is far, far away from reality. It's money and marketing, Kerryn -- quality plays an ever-diminishing role.

The truth is, some people take the road to self publishing not because of rejection by an industry mainly concerned with profits, but because they see it as an alternative way of having their work presented to the public -- as with other artists: painters, film makers, song-writers, etc. If you rely solely on the commercial industries associated with these areas of artistic endeavour for the evolution and appreciation of works then you've lost touch with the nature and origins of art in a society.

I implore you to think again about the issues that underpin this situation. We need heroes who will speak for the grassroots artists out there -- not apologists for a self-proclaimed elite.

"Maggy", some responses:

"I really don't know what you're basing your comments on -- but certainly not facts."

Really? I've been a judge of the Age Book of the Year Award, the Miles Franklin Award and the Commonwealth Writers' Prize, among other awards for fiction and nonfiction; my comments are based on my fairly extensive experience of the facts.

"I'm afraid your apparent view that mainstream publishers have a monopoly on spotting talent is far, far away from reality."

Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it. I didn't say 'mainstream publishers', and I didn't say 'monopoly'. Nonetheless, yes, my view is still far, far away from your own, which I'm sure is what you equate with 'reality'.

Your argument about 'heroes' cuts both ways; if people want to go bravely outside the literary mainstream, they can hardly expect to then reap the rewards of the literary mainstream.

As for the rest of your comments, it's clear to me that you are a crusader for this issue and nothing will sway you. But if you are so scornful of a 'self-proclaimed elite' (which is just cheap rhetoric, by the way, and Howardian rhetoric at that; who on earth are you referring to? Who are these people who allegedly call themselves an elite? And compared to what?), why would you care what literary prize judges think? Surely they belong to the 'elite' you so despise?

Kerryn, I think you've started making this debate a bit too personal -- and, as a result you're losing objectivity. Attacking some of my words as "cheap rhetoric" and "Howardian rhetoric at that", isn't really helpful -- or accurate. And I'm not sure why you're putting words in my mouth about the judges of literary awards -- I've not once been critical of such judges, it's the discriminatory guidelines for the PM's Literary Awards and those who prepared them that I'm criticising. And "despise" -- where did I say or even imply that I despise anyone? Critical of, yes; despise -- way overboard.

Look, it's a bit of an extra burden having to respond to things I didn't actually say, and I don't want to waste my time dealing with precious personalities. So I'll stop here. I just hope that at least a few readers will see the sense and equity in what I've written in earlier posts.

Expect to see a lot more vanity publishing with places like Lulu.com - the cost of printing and distribution is negligible, and very low even if you get them to do editing and setup.

But if you can't find a small publisher somewhere you have to face facts that your product is unlikely to be any good. If it's too slipshod or inaccessible to get just 500 people to pay for it is, then it is likely to be too slipshop or inaccessible to impress a iterary judge. So I don't think many self-published products are ever likely to be candidates for awards.

As for the list of those-who-later-became-"greats" who started off self-publishing, the argument would be more impressive if the self-published works, not the authors, were later recognised as great. Their juvenilia is only of interest to their biographers.